Itxa/4884/2010 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax - 1 v. Jindal Drugs
High Court
02 Feb 2023 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/4884/2010 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax - 1 v. Jindal Drugs
Date of order
02 Feb 2023
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Itxa/4884/2010 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax - 1 v. Jindal Drugs, the High Court (2023) decided the matter.
Decision: 2.In the light of Circular No.17 of 2019, the Appeal is disposed of asinvolving low tax effect.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL (IT) NO. 4884 OF 2010
Commissioner of Income Tax Central-I.. Appellant
v/s.
M/s. Jindal Drugs Ltd.
.. Respondent
…
Mr. Suresh Kumar for the appellant.
Mr. Jas Sanghavi a/w. Mr. Ansh Agal i/by PDS Legal for the respondent.…
CORAM : DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR AND KAMAL KHATA, JJ.
DATED : 3RD FEBRUARY, 2023.
P.C. :
.Learned counsel for the appellant states that the tax effect in thepresent Appeal is below the limit stipulated in terms of Circular No.17of 2019, dated 8th August 2019 issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes(CBDT). It is stated that no instructions have been received from theDepartment to withdraw the present Appeal.
2.In the light of Circular No.17 of 2019, the Appeal is disposed of asinvolving low tax effect.
3.However, we observe that in case, the Revenue finds for some
reason that the Appeal was not supposed to have been withdrawn in thelight of the Circular, it would be open to the Revenue to file anapplication, seeking restoration of the Appeal, to be decided on its ownmerits.
3.Refund of Court fees as per rules.
(KAMAL KHATA, J.)
(DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, J.)
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.